People like Brendan Eich, right? He spent $1,000 to help pass an amendment banning same-sex marriage in California. He believed his ideas about marriage must be accepted even if it required economic force to get people to accept them.
I’m a little confused why you bring him up as a counterexample.
FYI: Admin spez has posted an update of Reddit’s content rules here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/announcements/comments/3djjxw/lets_talk_content_ama/
spez is one of the founders of Reddit and he talks about how, back in the early days, he would often ban people for hate speech, because he didn’t want that on his site. But as Reddit grew, he allowed other people greater leeway in expressing themselves, which brings us to today. As of now, these are the Rules of Reddit
Hate speech is still allowed, provided it’s not used to harass specific individuals. Stalking and doxing specific individuals is right out. Coon Town is still open for business but, glancing at them, they are very clear that they need to be diligent in following the above rules to the letter.
Not that it’s any of our business what rules other websites do or do not maintain for themselves.
Now, someone go find me a set of new eyeballs, would you? I ruined my last pair wading through some of these reddit subs, today.
Reddit is a private company, so they can do whatever they want.
Having said that, the beauty of free speech is that not only does it allow you to say things other people don’t like, it allows other people to say things that are offensive or stupid.
The thing about silencing or “punishing” people for saying bad things that you’re not stopping them from thinking them. If anything, it confirms whatever persecution theory they may believe in. Regardless, it’s better to have hateful or ugly speech out there, where it can be seen and countered, than to censor it, under the deluded concept that suppressing the speech makes bad-thinking disappear. Anyway, the point is that suppressing speech is like covering a pothole with a piece of paper. You may not see the pothole anymore, but it’s still there.
Meh. Sometimes. But it’s perfectly okay for a restauranteur to say, “cut the bullshit in my restaurant.” There are places were confronting stupid hateful bullshit is efficient and welcome. Then there are places where people want to relax. And there’s nothing wrong whatsoever with censoring someone in your home, in your bar, wherever. (Note that certain forms of censorship might be a problem–but the concept itself isn’t a problem).
Reddit is under no obligation whatsoever–legal, moral, ethical–to allow nasty bullshit on their site.
This is all fine, but I still don’t see what a privately owned space (like reddit) deciding what messages and links can be posted in their space (which they already do) has to do with censorship or suppressing speech.
So you’re advocating for a forum here on SDMB that allows people to post like that, right? Or is it just supposed to happen at Reddit and a few other select bastions of free speech, while everyone else gets a pass? In the abstract the concept of sunlight as the best disinfectant is great, but it runs into a big problem when you conclude that bigots and racists have free hand to advocate anywhere they want.
If you bring your post to its logical conclusion, do you want a forum like that here?
Telling people that they can’t use your personal website to post their hate speech or launch their twitter raids is not punishing them. They are free to get their own website and say whatever they want.
As others have pointed out, this is not a free speech issue. Reddit is under no obligation to provide you with the means or platform to share any of your thoughts. The only argument for Reddit keeping the idiocy of Coontown up is if they want to have their brand stand for something like,“We promote all speech”, or “All speech is good”. And that is simply a brand decision that they are free to make or not make.
:eek: Oh magellan01, you’ve made me so happy!
Sort of a less vile The Pit?
Nah, this is a myth. A myth that always seems to be trotted out when we’re talking about “bad” ideas, but for some reason, rarely offered when we’re talking about good ones.
There’s a reason that churches exist: dedicating a space for people to talk about their shared ideologies enables those ideologies to flourish. If churches were abolished, I guarantee that over time, there would be a lot fewer believers. Isolate someone in their opinions and beliefs, and they are less likely to cling to them. They are more susceptible to having their minds changed. Faith is hard to maintain if no one is helping to reinforce its importance. It takes an exceptionally stubborn person to hold on to views when those views are not validated and normalized, and in fact, are scorned and ostracized.
The same applies to racist buffoonery. The more difficult it is for racists to find like-minded idiots to commune with, the less sticky their beliefs become over time. That’s why I can only roll my eyes when people think the “cure” to racism is to simply change the channel and look the other way. It’s backwards thinking.
And the less they are able to be spread to the next generation.
People say sunlight is a disinfectant and then they want to preserve and protect the bacteria.
My apologies for misattributing that to bashere, when it should be LinusK.
The cool thing about this board is that I’m not the only person to bring this up.
Every civil rights issue has been handled by force. We have two constitutional amendments and several Supreme Court cases that all had to be enacted by force. And, in the social arena, public shaming and ridicule–and thus not letting everyone have their say–has always been what works. There’s a reason why racism is taboo, and we don’t let racists speak in public spaces.
Looking the other way has never stopped racism in the past, and it will never stop it today. And racism isn’t bad because it’s offensive, BTW. It’s bad because it’s dangerous. It leads to discrimination if it ever gets popular enough.
Congratulations. You just justified Matthew Sheppard’s brutal murder.
Ouch.
Good one.
Thank you. When are these minorities going to learn that the majority has rights?
Shodan tried to make some idiotic point about “who’s going to decide who gets silenced?” or some nonsense. Frankly, it was far too esoteric for me to comprehend so I was relieved when another poster derided it as mere snark so I knew to disregard it. Thanks, Andy!
Shodan should NOT get to decide whose ideas are acceptable for polite conversation. The majority should. Because if my wife and I, and all of our friends, agree something is out of bounds–IT IS OUT OF BOUNDS!
And you’re absolutely right about public shaming. If I disagree with an opinion, I shouldn’t feel any obligation to state rationally and cogently why it’s incorrect, I should try and silence it! And I should send a message to other motherfuckers who might try and advocate the same obnoxious opinion. I will picket his work (free speech), and call for a boycott of his business (free speech), and drive by his house and swear at his kids (free speech)!
Hey, free speech has consequences, amirite? Minorities can say what they want, but they better be ready for the majority to say what we want right back, good and hard.
I also love the idea, not sure if it was yours, of flagging screen names of anyone who posts in fora we disagree with. But I think we should also flag those people in real life, so we can all know those holders-of-offensive-opinions if we encounter them on the street, too.
I was thinking, though, rather than flags, maybe stars in a maize or goldenrod, perhaps with six points, or maybe triangles in like a light reddish. Whadya think? I mean, only if the majority agrees, of course.
100% behind that idea, every last one of those scum should be doxxed and have to wear “Coontown” badges. That site and those vile people are the definition of pure ethnic hatred. Rip off their hoods and let them be judged by society.
10$ says those Coontowners would be shitting their pants at the hate flowing their way. “Not fair!!! People are hating me because they are judging my character/actions, not my ethnic heritage!!! What Nazis!!!” But then I’m a sucker for poetic irony.
I like the concept. In practice it’s a terrible idea. It already creates issues in other subreddits when someone identifies another poster as a r/coontown poster. It derails thread and forces moderators to deal with issues completely unrelated to their own forum.
I don’t read reddit to watch battles between social agendas, I like Reddit because it has subreddits specific to my interests without the social issue baggage that often comes with mixed purpose forums.
Reddit also doesn’t do anything to stop people from having multiple accounts. Someone could simple use one account to participate in r/coontown and another for everywhere else. A hate tag attached to users would ensure they can effectively troll other reddits just by participation.
I think tagging forums isn’t such a bad idea. r/hate/coontown works for me. I think if they implement a policy like that they should hire a third party to do so that way they can avoid the heat that comes with marking something as hate when people question the decision. Contract an organization like SPLC to do the tagging.
Oh, please. This is ridiculous. He donated money to help get his point of view out, as did people on both sides of the debate. I have no idea where you get this “he believed his ideas about marriage must be accepted”. That’s a flagrant and extreme mischaracterization of what he did.